Madras High Court
Nithin vs State By Inspector Of Police on 17 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.1522 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.1522 of 2024
and
CRL.MP.Nos.1056 & 1057 of 2024
1. Nithin
2. Saila ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. State by Inspector of Police
R-2, Police station, Crime Branch,
Kodambakkam, Chennai 24
(Cr.No.124/2022)
2. Sruthi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to
CC.No.2809/2023 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sona Sathishkumar
for M.Prabaharan
For Respondents : Ms.J.R.Archana
Government Advocate
for R1
Mr.K.Hemanathan
for Mr.N. Alagappan for R2
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
Crl.OP.No.1522 of 2024
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.2809 of 2023 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-XVII,
Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 in Crime No.124 of 2022, as
against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is a
business man who is running a company by name S.N.Enterprises. The
second respondent got introduced to the first petitioner through a
common friend working with her in Amazon and they have formed a
gang along with few other persons as friends. The first petitioner
borrowed loan from the second respondent to start an E-Commerce
business and has promised that he would offer an opportunity to her join
in the business and promised to return back the money. Thereby, the
second respondent has trusted the said words of the first petitioner and
submitted her document to the Bank agent and the bank agent processed
the maximum loan amount for her CTC and the HDFC Bank has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
sanctioned a loan of Rs.11,95,000/- . Thereafter, the second respondent
has transferred a sum of Rs.9,95,000/- to S.N.Enterprises and
Rs.2,00,000/- to the second petitioner's account on 16.11.2020. The first
petitioner has paid E.M.I of Rs.25,793/- for the second respondent's loan
for almost 12 months and thereafter he stopped to pay the EMI.
2(ii) The further case of the prosecution is that the second
respondent noticed that the 1st petitioner company has been registered for
the name sake and there is no functioning of business in the said address.
The second respondent noticed a ware house named Bally Energy in the
said address which had the 1st petitioner's name and details on the board.
She has inquired about the residence of S.N.Enterprises and has come to
know that such a company does not exist and the warehouse is closed for
so many days. This had caused suspicion and the second respondent
decided to confront the first petitioner about the fraudulent behaviour.
When she approached the first petitioner in his residence in the month of
January 2022, he has refused to return back the money and has also
threatened her. Hence, the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint against
the petitioners.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
the transaction between the first petitioner and the second respondent is a
commercial transaction and after repayment of substantial amount , the
second respondent has lodged a complaint. That apart, the entire amount
has been transferred only to the account of the first petitioner and the
second petitioner is in no way connected with the allegations even
according to the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings
in C.C.No.2809 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate-XVII, Saidapet Chennai.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and on getting
instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that the
petitioners/A1 and A2 have refused to return back the money and
threatened her with dire consequence. The accused 1 and 2 were arrested
and remanded to judicial custody, in pursuance of the action taken in
Cr.No.124/2022 and later they were enlarged on bail.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that after
sanctioning personal loan from the bank, the second respondent has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
transferred the entire loan amount i.e., 11,95,000/- to the account of the
petitioners. The company itself is in the name of the second respondent
and both the accused have committed very serious offence as against the
second respondent.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent
police and the learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
7. It is seen that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent,
the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.124 of 2022 for the
offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC. After completion of
investigation, the first respondent filed a final report and the same has
been taken cognizance in C.C.No.2809 of 2023 by the trial Court and the
same is pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner has
filed the present petition.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs.
State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held
that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of
the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their
statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as
against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while
deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while
deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C.
9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment
dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of
M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the
petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not
embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All
that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the
complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain
offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the
preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or
not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if
accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether
the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to
law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
11. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage whether the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the
ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet
cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2809 of 2023 on the file of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate-XVII, Saidapet, Chennai. The petitioners are at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Considering the age
of the second petitioner, the personal appearance of the second petitioner
is dispensed with and she shall be represented by a counsel after filing
appropriate application. However, the second petitioner shall be present
before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges,
questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing
judgment. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
17.03.2025
Vv
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate-XVII,
Saidapet, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police
R-2, Police station, Crime Branch,
Kodambakkam, Chennai 24.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
and
CRL.MP.Nos.1056 & 1057 of 2024
17.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 11:36:09 am )
